It’s going to take far more than civil disobedience to mitigate global warming. It’s going to take an international treaty to phase out fossil fuel production and to “keep the grease in the ground”:

http://www.docudharma.com/diary/16223/keeping-the-grease-in-the-ground-a-challenge

The seedbed for that treaty, the grounds for its success, will be laid with ecological socialism — we will need to switch from capitalist plutocracy and endless privilege to the gluttons at the top, to a “share the wealth” philosophy governing human global society.

What in the universe is permanent? Certainly not Homo Sapiens.

All I can say is WoW! about the Sierra Club.

I expect to see more from them in the future now.

Keep tuned.

It’s a long way to DC from NM. We talked about whether the cost of the trip would not be better just donated to 350.org.

No mention of the protest and arrests on the MSM. If Robert Kennedy Jr. Had been arrested for drunken driving, it would have been the top story.

That is why I made it a priority to have a post on this here at FDL.

Thanks for the report, Kevin, and FDL for front-paging.

This was a big step for the Sierra Club. I hope they continue to have good support from their membership.

Thank you to all the brave people who organized and participated in this protest.

Props to Sierra Club for getting arrested.

Coming immediately after the presididn’t's subjugation of the union address, this act is a visual message they are too polite to say verbally:

Barack Obama, you are a lying sack of shit.

What if President Barack Obama is NOT “… ready to lead”?

At what point, that is WHEN, will it become necessary for those who have the courage to protest, to likewise have the courage to dare to support those who have shown possession of the moral compass to “lead”, not with empty words, but by putting their own skin on the line?

In other words, if the purpose of “protest” is to change the understanding and behavior of “leaders”, to encourage better policy and behavior, and the “leaders” refuse to change, then is it not apparent that both the notion of “leadership” and those who are regarded as “leaders” must change?

If, for example, Obama and the Democratic Party refuse to respond, refuse to change their ways, then how may those who protest and the many, besides the “leaders”, whose understanding the protestors wish to expand or encourage … continue to “support” Obama and his party?

Frankly, if reason, if actual understanding were the issue, and if, by now, President Barack Obama and Democratic Party members in Congress do not understand the reasons why there MUST be change in environmental policy and behaviors, then how may it be supposed, short of actual consequence for themselves, personally, if they do not change, that any amount of protest, that any amount of resistance, will move those who have “power” … to change?

For the first time in our history we have a President whose heritage of color is acknowledged and celebrated … and there is a moral history which attends this fact, a history which has reasonable and understandable parallels to the basic question of reason and of understanding … one with which Barack Obama should well be acquainted and, one might consider, be willing to embrace.

Yet, the President’s behavior regarding environmental concerns, as with many other issues, such as war or the state of the economy (both of which are tied to the issue of the environment and “access” to necessary resources) seems to be divorced from much of our shared history and to be premised upon, not the well-being of the many, not the wise vision of those who “look forward” in order to anticipate dangers to the many, “the people”, or to threats to the capacity of the earth to provide the means of human survival, but to a “pragmatic”, and to be blunt, self-serving purview. To be fair, Barack Obama is not alone in this world view, it is shared by the political class, which includes the media, it is shared by the ruling classes, the corporate and the military, the monied classes … it is virtually ubiquitous, in its acceptance, among all of those whom George W. Bush rather quaintly termed, the “deciders” …

The action of protest, I consider, the action of resistance, I am certain, must require commitment to other actions, to being willing to entertain the possibility that those who presently wield power might be unwilling, possibly unable, in their own minds, to imagine, to conceive of being capable of doing things, anything, differently. Therefore, it is incumbent upon and behooves those who protest, who resist, to imagine and consider, that beyond changing minds, we might well have to change the “deciders” for others more willing and more able to seek not aggrandizement, nor power, nor wealth for themselves, but a better more sustainable, just and humane, world for everyone.

Perhaps, in order to save our world, we are not called upon to merely change the minds of those who “run” our world, but to change the entire nature of our relationship to that world AND to each other?

Thank you Kevin, for bringing us news of what might be evidence of such fundamental, and necessary, change …

DW

DW,
I wish I could express what you just captured in that post.

(Thomas Jefferson or my hero James Madison could not have done as well.*g*)

He is absolutely meant to lead, in the role of pied piper.

And he plays it really well.

Humans are in the process of evolving into ‘ticky tacky’ as Pete Seeger puts it in his song “Little Boxes”

video http://stealthismeme.wordpress.com/

so sad how this downward evolution is a conscious choice.

Gosh, I hate to be the odd man out again, but I’d seen this event at Censored News, went to tarsandsaction.org, read the story, the participants names and brief bios, looked at the photos, *and* the timing of the announcement of the event (early in the morning yesterday), and wondered if holding an elite event of 50 might be just wrong. Yep, they invited a couple ranchers from Texas and Nebraska who’ve been protesting the pipeline’s incursion on their lands. And yep, celebrities can get some extra media attention.

If I remember correctly, the Sierra Club suspended their prohibition against civil disobedience for one day: maybe yesterday was the day. Yes, bully for them.

Me, I’ll be far more glad of the everyday Americans who can be there on Sunday. With all due respect, of course.

I see this as a moment in time with the Sierra Club maybe starting to see that working within the establishment isn’t achieving their goals, McKibben and some reason for skepticism about his stepping back before the election, a traditonal large demonstration this week-end, the more serious civil disobedience that’s occurring elsewhere – maybe something new comes out of it all, maybe not.

If (when) Obama approves the pipeline, we’ll how the different opposition groups react, and whether this is really some sort of turning point.

Humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth’s history – 200,000 years.

We’ve been burning fossil fuels for 3000 or 4000 years.

This “problem” will take care of itself.

We will indeed, and the people’s resistance won’t be so managed ahead of time with police and the media. Regular people will face large fines, incarceration and more.

The only people more kettled than OWS protestors are the MSM. Love to see what would happen to Anderson Cooper or Rachel Maddow if they showed up with a crew to cover the protests and arrests or even do a story on it .

Great comment and a good preview of the near future because we can’t keep the status quo much longer. By the way where was the Sierra Club politically in 2012? If any group should have been behind the Green New Deal it should have been them. Welcome to the party Sierra Club and we will have many more converts to the cause as Kevin and others expose the con artists.

Yes, then the real question will be whether some among the more privileged will start to cast their lot with the real people.

What in the universe is permanent?

The bullshit coming out of Washington DC, apparently.

Wait: Was that a trick question?

When shit happens to them directly is the only time problems need to be solved. So until Gstaad has no snow or a super storm wipes out the Hamptons or the Russian River floods out the Bohemian Club they will just sigh about “our” troubles.

Props should be given to Malvina Reynolds for writing the song.

I’m thinking more of the vast membership and donor base of organizations like the Sierra Club, not so much the super-star celebrities. Is there a point when the rank and file of these organizations see the need to move in another direction? (I have no idea).

I’m including this Select Group of 50 in that, myself. It smacks of double-elitism, which is a rather prevalent gripe of the eco-movement in the public at large.

We have radioactive water circulating in the Pacific, the xl pipeline coming down from Canada (don’t worry, safeguards will be in place), the Gulf of Mexico is being destroyed (we see how well those safeguards work), we have huge problems with climate change, we have draughts where a very large amount of our food grows, we are wasting more and more money in wars that do nothing but lead to more wars as we alienate the world (deliberately to produce the wars), and we are driving the middle class into poverty as the 1% commit daily criminal acts of fraud against us. The Sierra Club steps out of the veal pen for one day and this is supposed to be a portent of the future. They will be back in the veal pen quickly, but now they have a new money raising meme.

What is the natural political order in the United States during the present era? Is it really the “two party system”? Maybe not. Maybe the natural order is that manifested in the election of 1912, a year not so distant that it belongs to another era but still before the century-long world wars that have gradually constricted American political life into a straitjacket.

In that year, there was a creative explosion of political life–not two major parties but four. The Democrats and Republicans, of course, but also the Progressives (“Bullmoose”) led by Theodore Roosevelt, which ran to the left of the legacy parties (Jane Addams’ nomination of TR was an inspiring breakthrough for women’s political participation) AND the Socialists under Eugene Debs, who garnered 6 percent of the national vote and gained more than 1,000 state and local office holders. Sierra of today is undoubtedly Bullmoose in essence.

Maybe, just maybe, the artificial “two-party system” now really a uniparty, is ripe for cracking.

Even if they don’t ever move they are being replaced by the next generation and that is where the “American Spring” will start. We have over 200,000 janitors with bachelor degrees and who knows how many waiters and interns. They will not accept the austerity the PTB want to impose so that they can continue the status quo.

Understand your cynicism but don’t agree this time. Sierra Club will not go back to “normal”. I don’t think it is populated with the typical “low information” rich Democrat or environmentalist. Keystone XL has been outed and Obama will approve it and that is certain. Sierra Clubbers know this is the tipping point. The people will stop it not the President.

The interesting thing about the Sierra Club is that it gets much of it’s funding from Chesapeake Energy the natgas fracker. While many of it’s menmbers may be dedicated enviros the orginazition, like most of our enviro orgs, has been compromised by big biz.

Another interesting thing I’ve noticed is that Obama is never home when 350.org comes to call on the White House, he was in NC yesterday and out of the country during the big demo in 2011. He must have an informant in place so he has plenty of time to schedule his absence.

As a parenthetical note to my last comment, there has been a huge effort on the part of mainstream American historians to marginalize the progressives of the immediate pre-World War I years as a middle-class group with psychological issues who feared a loss of their status from both the oligarchs above them and the teeming, militant masses beneath them. See, for example, The Age of Reform” by Richard Hofstadter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Reform

In fact, during those years, there was a continuity between progressives and socialists with no sharp cleavages–a continuity shattered by the political witch hunts during the Wilson adminsitration. (Eugene Debs was sentenced to 10 years in a federal prison for making a speech against the war. President Harding pardoned him in 1921).

I too am troubled by the longevity of this ‘need for celebrity’ that certain parts of mainstream envmnltism seem to crave. Granted, I’m glad Darryl Hannah is there, and that she’s putting her money where her politics is, and I am amused/happy that SC finally decided that the oil companies really are the most dangerous and ruthless killers on the planet, but the constant parade of these celebrities is getting a bit tiring. It also ignores the mass dissatisfaction that recent movements such as OWS tapped into and that climate catastrophes will motivate (to where?)

It is not going to be a chosen elite that solves America’s energy problems through CD against other elites. Truthfully, I feel it alienates many of those who are ready to change, and plays right into the hands of the rabid PR and propaganda mills of the oligarchs. This strategy may have worked in the 80′s, and less so in the 90s, but I think it’s a dead end with the corporate media black-out now. Grassroots organizing, talking to your neighbors about these situations, and individuals doing mass arrests to block coal and pipelines will be much more effective.

Thank you, applepie. Cheri Honkala was there, and she has *seriously* laid it on the line before.

Mike Roselle spelled some of the Sierra Club rules suspensions (brief) and what the risks are next. He’s glad for all of it, but Elitism is anti-democratic any way you look at it. The big action on Sunday may help, but I can’t imagine it’ll be enough to convince Obomba (I mean John Kerry, lol). But at least it will be ordinary people!

Thank you for your thoughts, seriously.

That Roselle, always stirring things up! Thanks for the link!

de nada... ;o)

Civil disobedience is a funny thing. It’s so much easier when your employer sympathizes with your cause. People who work for the Sierra Club, or writers like Bill McKibben good enough to support themselves independently, can afford to have a criminal record or even be sentenced to jail. For many people though, that means getting fired and maybe losing their homes and having trouble finding another job.

Yeah, I guess it is better to live like a rat in a decaying hole and hope the landlord doesn’t find and gas you.

I believe there is misunderstanding of what civil disobedience is. The power that Gandhi wielded was not because of weakness. He had the power to use violence, he had the numbers, but he chose non violence. So, on the one hand, someone who is weak, his civil disobedience is meaningless because they have no power to do anything. On the hand, there are people who have the power to use violence and can win, but choose to not use violence. British seems to have understood it quite well.So non violence and violence are connected.

Are you arguing against civil disobedience? Are you trying to diminish their act because they have privilege that others do not? I would think having privilege would increase one’s responsibility to act.

whether some among the more privileged will start to cast their lot with the real people.

ummm, I believe, as long as they have a Congressional Inbox for gifts and bribes, the status quo will stay alive and well.

It wasn’t an attempt to diminish their act but just discuss the logistics of civil disobedience, which I think are often overlooked.